Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Bill Moyers: They govern like there's no tomorrow
This Bill Moyers article has been reverberating around my corners of the 'net for the past week or so. The thesis is that the Republicans have long had a large streak of fundamentalist Christianity, and these fundamentalists are expecting The Rapture real soon now, so there's no need to conserve the environment, or save for the future, and they govern like it.
He even has a quote from James Watt before a congressional committee to that effect.
The thing is, the quote, originally from an article by Glenn Scherer of Grist, apparently never happened. Which, of course, set the hounds that inhabit the right wing of the web a-baying. Whether or not the thesis has merit, a paragon of the left did one little thing wrong, so he must be hunted down. (But that's a topic for another day. Soon.)
As far as the thesis itself, I think it's over-wrought. I am instictively repulsed by the demonization of a religious group, which I think is a healthy instinct to have.
I'd much rather indulge in the demonization of Republicans. There's no need to invent a religious conspiracy theory to explain the governance of this administration. It's what they do naturally: loot the treasury, drain natural resources, enrich their friends. Not because they're religious fundamentalists; it just looks good on a short-term balance sheet.
He even has a quote from James Watt before a congressional committee to that effect.
The thing is, the quote, originally from an article by Glenn Scherer of Grist, apparently never happened. Which, of course, set the hounds that inhabit the right wing of the web a-baying. Whether or not the thesis has merit, a paragon of the left did one little thing wrong, so he must be hunted down. (But that's a topic for another day. Soon.)
As far as the thesis itself, I think it's over-wrought. I am instictively repulsed by the demonization of a religious group, which I think is a healthy instinct to have.
I'd much rather indulge in the demonization of Republicans. There's no need to invent a religious conspiracy theory to explain the governance of this administration. It's what they do naturally: loot the treasury, drain natural resources, enrich their friends. Not because they're religious fundamentalists; it just looks good on a short-term balance sheet.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Eric Alterman and Cathy Young
The latest Eric Alterman/Cathy Young battle erupted when the Boston Globe published Ms Young's essay "Saturday the Rabbi Went Nuts", featuring this gem about a recent Alterman quote: "Call it self-hatred or something less psychoanalytic; the bottom line is, this is the kind of rhetoric that, coming from a non-Jew, would be clearly seen as anti-Semitic." (Alterman's original quote is here.)
Dem's fightin' words. If Young's not Jewish, I'd say doubly so. Totally inaccurate, and way over the line.
Alterman wrote back to the Globe of course. But the Globe refuses to publish anything more than two short paragraphs of Alterman's response. Reason (Ms Young's web publisher), to their credit, publishes Alterman's response in full, with a response by Young.
I read both of these people habitually (I was going to say "religiously" but let's not go there). The irony is that I agree much more often with Alterman EXCEPT, generally, on Israel, where I side much more often with Young. But Young, here, needs to have a much more nuanced understanding of the difference between anti-semitism, anti-Zionism, and just disagreement with the 90's Likud policies. Until she acquires that understanding, she should stay away from throwing mud like this.
Alterman and Young will have at this for a while, I'd guess, and bully for them.
The REAL villian of the piece in my mind is the Globe. Shame on them for not allowing a response at length by Alterman. What arrogance. I am totally disgusted with them.
I'm looking forward to more from Dan Kennedy on this! Don't let me down, Dan!
Dem's fightin' words. If Young's not Jewish, I'd say doubly so. Totally inaccurate, and way over the line.
Alterman wrote back to the Globe of course. But the Globe refuses to publish anything more than two short paragraphs of Alterman's response. Reason (Ms Young's web publisher), to their credit, publishes Alterman's response in full, with a response by Young.
I read both of these people habitually (I was going to say "religiously" but let's not go there). The irony is that I agree much more often with Alterman EXCEPT, generally, on Israel, where I side much more often with Young. But Young, here, needs to have a much more nuanced understanding of the difference between anti-semitism, anti-Zionism, and just disagreement with the 90's Likud policies. Until she acquires that understanding, she should stay away from throwing mud like this.
Alterman and Young will have at this for a while, I'd guess, and bully for them.
The REAL villian of the piece in my mind is the Globe. Shame on them for not allowing a response at length by Alterman. What arrogance. I am totally disgusted with them.
I'm looking forward to more from Dan Kennedy on this! Don't let me down, Dan!
